If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Ah - the beauty of numbers. And the way they can be selected to prove - whatever we want.

Such as you showing total production without mention of how many trees where needed to grow it? I in fact show lbs per acre. Just like dollars per hour. You cannot mislead with those comparisons. You then claim some sort of manipulation of numbers in hopes no one will sort at where the missleading is. You show only half a story believing that others will just make up the other half in agreement with your view. 1.98 billion lbs of almonds from 780,000 acres is in fact less almonds per acre than 2.03 billion lbs from 760,000 acres. can you see the manipulation in those numbers? Those are the numbers from 2012 and 2011.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Yield per acre is, of course, important but given the fact that an almond cannot be set without a bee to pollinate the bloom, the total crop is a pretty good indication of the total bees pollinating and isn't that really what the discussion is about?

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Which has been on a steady climb since 1995 when yields where 800 and some per acre and 1400 lbs per acre was considered a good crop. This is attributed to better methods in growing trees. not honey bees. Again you use information to misslead.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Such as you showing total production without mention of how many trees where needed to grow it? I in fact show lbs per acre.

Daniel I in no way disputed the number of acres I have no problem with that. More acres, would need more bees, right? Adding to demand for bees? Right?

My quote from the article was to add critical missing information from the original quote, that gave a misleading impression on gross production. We all know there is more acres now, I'm not saying that's not true.

All credit to you for drawing attention to this though. But it doesn't show a shortage of bees, or a collapse of the almond industry. Not to say this will never happen, maybe it will. But this last crop? No.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Every location has it's ups and downs. My area in TN is an awesome place for bees. Maybe not the best for high pollination contracts or extra large honey yields. But 90lbs a hive is common. No big agriculture and lots of bio diversity.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Skewed data. Surely you cannot believe it. ..

It is very strange that being governmental employee you have no respect to statistical analysis and all other things commonly used in reseach and governmental reports. You just disregard everything. It looks like there is only one opinion on the earth - it is yours... I feel sorry for you - to live between idiots, who know nothing about anything. It should be tough...

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

My thoughts too.

However one of the arguments used by the want to ban neonics people, is that the dust generated at planting drifts onto other fields, and thereby still finds it's way into bee collected pollen via the plants growing in adjoining fields, causing the bees to die of CCD. So, MP's bees don't die of CCD in big numbers. Could this be because the crop growers in that area use good practise, or is the whole theory flawed. Could be either.

To me, there's a risk around any insecticide, and it's about doing what we can, with user cooperation of course, to keep bees exposure to minimum.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

My thoughts too.

However one of the arguments used by the want to ban neonics people, is that the dust generated at planting drifts onto other fields, and thereby still finds it's way into bee collected pollen via the plants growing in adjoining fields,

Well if the corn is round up ready there will be fewer weed flowers for the bees to come in contact with. Or maybeeeee his bees are Irish, ya know luck of the Irish as we sometimes say here in the states.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

The amount of weeds that bees use that roundup stops is tiny. most weeds compete only until the corn canopies... and never bloom the major weeds here in the midwest that comete in the corn, are not real bee forage items.. foxtail and grasses being the main ones.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Assuming nics are a problem. Maybe the answer is the same as some believe the answer to Varroa is. Let the bees with resistance survive. At least in this case the problem is not able to develop along with the bee. It could be possible that those without losses near large fields of corn have only resistant bees.

I woudl still like to know why the lesser of all evils thought is even acceptable. why is any evil acceptable. Why should it not be the corn growers who's chosen crop cannot survive pay the price? I will grow a plant that is not entirely suitable to survive in this area at the expense of beekeepers. And exactly why is this agreeable to beekeepers? Because we should be so grateful they have not chosen to cause even greater damage? How about they grow corn where corn can grow without killing our bees. How about we decide our bees survival is more important than their corn production. I am not sure I see how their concerns for profit is greater than ours. So much so that they are allowed to make otherwise completely bee compatible environments and make them incompatible in the interest of their corn thriving. I say if you need pesticides to grow corn. you need to grow something else. I grew crops for 16 years and never used a chemical fertilizer, pesticide fungicide or even sewage to do so.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

It's easy to play with other people's land, lives, and livelyhoods when it's not your own. Let's assume his crop (example corn) does fail as do the majority of the crops in the surounding states because of your "eradication of evil" plan. Prices go up dramatically and there are corn shortages in South and Central America. Tack on the same crop failure due to pests, drought, floods, etc in South and Central America and now the problem just got real serious.

They own the land and can grow whatever legal crop they want to on there however they legally want to. If they want to hold onto the land whatever they grow on there better turn a profit enough to pay all the bills, keep the family fed, and turn a profit on capital invested. It's not OUR land and I am grateful that they don't use outright bee deadly insecticides. Short of the powder released during planting there's no repeatable evidence that says neonics are the root of evil. You say you grew crops 16 years. Did you make your primary income off of them and why don't you do it anymore?

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Daniel Y

I say if you need pesticides to grow corn. you need to grow something else.

This is why Monsanto and Bayer do not put alot of effort into producing videos or documentaries to show the public why bees, frogs, pheasants and other wildlife thrive despite the pesticide use. They know alot of city folks watching the documentaries will think: "those bees, pheasants, frogs and other wildlife that can be found in neonic monocultures that look healthy are probably sick or will suffer genetic mutations, etc."